Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 116 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-734 Opinion Delivered: October 1, 2026 JOSE R. GARCIA-CHICOL APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 39CV-24-129] HONORABLE DANNY GLOVER, DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, JUDGE ARKANSAS DIVISION OF CORRECTION AFFIRMED. APPELLEE KAREN R. BAKER, Chief Justice Appellant Jose R. Garcia-Chicol appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101 to - 123 (Repl. 2016) in the county where he is currently incarcerated. In the petition, Garcia- Chicol claimed that his arrest was invalid when federal officials were not notified pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.5 (2026) upon his arrest by the Siloam Springs Police Department; he did not receive effective legal representation familiar with the specific Guatemalan dialect that he understood; his right to speedy trial was violated; he had informed the trial court of “issues” with his trial counsel and that counsel was ineffective; and there were several instances of trial error, including an improper jury instruction. The circuit court denied Garcia-Chicol’s request for habeas relief, finding the petition did not establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that Garcia-Chicol was being illegally detained. We affirm. I. Background In 2018, a Benton County Circuit Court jury convicted Garcia-Chicol of the rape of his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Garcia- Chicol appealed to this court, challenging as improper conduct a bailiff’s communication with the jury during deliberations and the circuit court’s decision to admit into evidence a translation of a letter written by Garcia-Chicol to his wife. There was no prejudice that may have arisen from the bailiff’s comments to the foreman during deliberations because the court had polled the jury pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Evidence 606(b) to determine whether any external influence or information could have played a part in the jury’s verdict. Garcia-Chicol v. State, 2020 Ark. 148, 597 S.W.3d 63.Because Garcia-Chicol did not attack the translator’s qualifications or allege any motive on the part of the translator to mislead or distort the contents of the letter, the circuit court properly treated the State’s translator as a “language conduit.” Id. Pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), there was no violation of Garcia-Chicol’s right to confrontation because the translated statements were directly attributable to him, making them nontestimonial and not subject to the Sixth Amendment. Garcia-Chicol, 2020 Ark. 148, 597 S.W.3d 63; see Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006). Garcia-Chicol now appeals the denial of his habeas petition. II. Grounds for Issuance of the Writ A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Jefferson v Payne, 2025 Ark. 174, 722 S.W.3d 769. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the 2 subject matter in controversy. Id. When the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment. Id. A petitioner for the writ who does not allege his or her actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction and make a showing, by affidavit or other evidence, of probable cause to believe that he or she is being illegally detained. Finney v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 145, 598 S.W.3d 26 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016)). Proceedings for the writ do not require an extensive review of the record of the trial proceedings, and the trial court’s inquiry into the validity of the judgment is limited to the face of the commitment order. Jefferson, 2025 Ark. 174, 722 S.W.3d 769. Unless the petitioner can show that the commitment order was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Id. III. Standard of Review A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Lowery v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 85, 665 S.W.3d 223. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. 3 IV. Claims for Relief Garcia-Chicol contends that the circuit court should be required to detail the basis for its conclusion and make more elaborate findings. In the same vein, Garcia-Chicol further contends that his claims have evaded judicial review and that he should be provided with an evidentiary hearing, effective counsel to assist him, and appointment of a special judge. Our habeas statutes and proceedings contemplate a hearing in the event the writ is issued. Jackson v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 255, 602 S.W.3d 743. There is no requirement that a petitioner be given a hearing regardless of the content of the petition. Id. A hearing is not required on a habeas petition—even when the petitioner alleges an otherwise cognizable ground—when probable cause for the issuance of the writ is not shown by affidavit or other evidence. Jones v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 37, 618 S.W.3d 132. Moreover, the habeas statutes do not require the circuit court to make written findings on a habeas petition. Id. Garcia-Chicol has failed to demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the writ, and the circuit court was not required to hold a hearing on his petition or appoint counsel. As he did in his petition,1 Garcia-Chicol argues that the State failed to notify the Guatemalan Consulate of his arrest pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.5. The court’s jurisdiction to try the accused does not depend on the validity of the arrest. Myers v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 156. A defendant, after being fairly tried in a court of competent jurisdiction and found 1 On appeal, Garcia-Chicol fails to develop his arguments regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a speedy-trial violation, and an allegation of an improper jury instruction. Issues raised below but not argued on appeal are abandoned. Travis v. Payne, 2026 Ark. 65. 4 guilty, is not entitled to be set free on the basis of some flaw in the manner of his or her arrest. Id. Questions pertaining to whether there was some error in the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of a criminal offense are not within the purview of a habeas corpus proceeding.2 Myers, 2022 Ark. 156. For his last argument, Garcia-Chicol claims the translator that he was provided was not familiar with his Guatemalan dialect, which affected his ability to assist in his own defense due to an inability to understand the proceedings against him. A defendant has the right to an interpreter who is competent to render accurate translations. United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990); see Ludrick v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 54, 381 S.W.3d 87. Although Garcia-Chicol contends that the failure to have a translator familiar with his specific Guatemalan dialect prevented him from assisting in his defense, this claim of trial error does not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court. Claims of trial error are not within the purview of a habeas proceeding because the writ will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial because those errors could, and should, have been raised at trial and on the record on direct appeal. Anderson v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 129. 2 Notably, 28 C.F.R. § 50.5(a) states that it is designed to establish a uniform procedure for consular notification where nationals of foreign countries are “arrested by officers of this Department” on charges of criminal violations. Local law enforcement officers are not the officers referenced in the section. 5 Garcia-Chicol has not alleged or shown that his judgment and commitment order is illegal on its face or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. The circuit court did not err by denying Garcia-Chicol’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Affirmed. Special Justices CORY COX and CLINTON DEWITT join. WEBB and BRONNI, JJ., not participating. 6